Science & Catastrophism Discussions

Butting In: Science & Catastrophism Discussions

Hey Everyone, or Someone. Mind if I butt in again?

I've been pre-occupied with survival issues (getting better-paying jobs etc), so I haven't had enough time to drop by here much. I've been reading Miles' history papers and sometimes the Cuttingthroughthefog forum. At the latter, I mentioned the Great Flood and someone said Miles has stated something like no global cataclysms have occurred in the last 5,000 years. I haven't been able to find where he may have said that, though I know in the Velikovsky paper last year or so he said he thinks Venus did not behave like Velikovsky proposed in relatively recent times.

I post science article titles and links each week on the TB forum and the FreeStateProject forum, similar to what Cr6 does here sometimes. I'd like to have comments here on any of those each week. I'd also like to have an ongoing discussion of Catastrophism, i.e. global cataclysms in Earth's history, esp. more recent history. Well, gotta go to my paying job now.

.
Hey Lloyd, that's you, right? Butting-in? Nonsense, you're free to come and go and discuss as much you like, we can try to keep up.

There may not be any survival issue discussion here these days, it's safe to say the world has become a lot less easy for most of us.

In my mind, the charge field makes catastrophism far more likely. For example, the Earth's ridged (shell-like) planetary surface periodically gives way, conforming to the planet's slow expansion, which has doubled its radius in the last 60 million years, resulting in earthquakes and other violent upheavals. Also, below its surface, I'm convinced the Earth is not at all ridged, its internal mass is constantly being redistributed, which cause occasional tennis racquet spin changes. It seems to me Miles has largely avoided such ideas.  

Anyway, you're always welcome.
.

Yes. Thanks, Airman. So you want to start right off discussing Earth Expansion. Okay. I'll review my notes and get back here soon, I think.

EXPANDING EARTH
See John Kierein's site at http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html

CATASTROPHISM
If there is expansion of planets etc, it's a very slow process taking millions of years. But there's good evidence that sedimentary rock strata (and fossils etc) formed recently in a short period of time and that rapid continental drift and mountain building followed.

AT CUTTINGTHROUGHTHEFOG.COM

Lloyd Kinder said: March 25, 2020 at 2:07 pm
NO GLOBAL CATACLYSMS IN LAST 5,000 YEARS?
[Someone said Miles said that somewhere. Was it in his Velikovsky paper from last year or so? I know he said something like Venus didn't come near to Earth in recent millennia.]
... I’d like to have scientific discussion of such matters. [A small group of supporters] started a Mathis forum a few years ago. ... I wrote a bunch of questions for Miles and someone posted them on that forum. Others have added more questions. It’s at https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/f2-questions-for-mm

Someone said: March 25, 2020 at 2:42 pm
What’s so important about having the flood dates so soon? [He thinks] Possibly at the end of the last Ice Age and maybe even millions of years ago. It does seem like water carved out [v]ast portions of the earth just by looking at the pictures of the mountains and valleys all over the place. So no one is saying that a big thing like that didn’t happen… just not that soon. 5000 years is almost like yesterday in geological time.

Someone said: March 25, 2020 at 5:28 pm
@ Lloyd Kinder, I’m persuaded that there was a not-so-long-ago flood, too.

Someone said: March 25, 2020 at 6:04 pm
Do you mean the kind of flood that carved the Grand Canyon and all those obvious erosion formations in the desert and the mountains and valleys that we see on earth?
Or do you mean a smaller flood that didn’t encompass the whole earth? Claims made without evidence can be abandoned without evidence.

Someone said: March 25, 2020 at 6:57 pm
@[someone], There’s a ton of evidence, but a lot of times they belittle it, or at least, relegate it to a minimal localized area as is the case with the scablands in Eastern Washington. The guy that, initially, put that forth was laughed to scorn for years. But academia, even as dishonest as they are, finally gave in and vindicated him, giving him his due credit. Or how about stalactites growing under freeway bridges?? We could go on all day…

Someone said: March 25, 2020 at 7:03 pm
Randall Carlson provides a very good case for the last great flood occurring 11-12000 years ago. He looks at the channelled scablands of Washington to give you an idea of the scale. I know Carlson is not to be trusted but the evidence he presents is compelling.

Someone said: March 25, 2020 at 7:14 pm
I believe there was a flood but why does it have to be within 5000 years?

Someone said: March 25, 2020 at 8:16 pm
11-12000 years is a lot more realistic than 5000. My money is on way more than 12000.

Someone said:
March 25, 2020 at 8:33 pm
I’m not sure why you’re having this flooding debate I must have missed the start of it.
Just in case its of any help to anybody I saw a documentary on TV a couple of years ago that explained there was a land bridge of chalk joining England and France until towards the end of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago. Apparently it was holding back an ice flow 20 miles wide, and as the ice started to melt and seep through the cracks in the chalk it eventually weakened it enough to give way causing a colossal rush of water that created the English Channel and flooded the area we now call Norfolk, and explains why we have identical chalk cliffs on the English and French coasts.
Of course they could have been making the dates up, I have no way of knowing but it sounded plausible enough.
I have the fortune to live atop one of those cliffs and walk along them most days.
Its my plan B if they introduce compulsory vaccination lol.
What you see in the 100ft or so high cliffs is clear black strata of flint about 15ft apart in 3 layers from the top down and very little the rest of the way down. This suggests to me that they were put down by cataclysms when the chalk was forming over millions of years, presumably floods do occur on a regular basis but major ones very chronologically separated, but that before that there was an extremely long period with none.
Make of that what you will I am just posting it in case its of value in your discussions.
As I say I don’t know why its a relevent debate.

LK: If the chalk strata etc were just setting there for thousands or millions of years, why didn't they erode, so you can see ditches? Instead, the strata boundaries are very straight, showing no erosion between strata.

Someone said: March 25, 2020 at 9:48 pm
@[someone], Fair enough. But, whenever it was, it was a super cataclysm. I, sometimes think along the same lines, 10,000 years, maybe. But when you take into account certain discoveries, such as the Acambaro figurines, in Mexico, it totally throws me off.

Someone said: March 25, 2020 at 10:16 pm
I like this subject. When I walk around in the woods I can’t help but look at all the rock formations and wonder how did this ... all get here like this? Inquiring minds want to know!

Someone said: March 25, 2020 at 10:18 pm
The Acambaro what? No need to get thrown off by 33,000 perfectly smooth undamaged ancient figurines.

[LK: Are you suggesting the 33,000 is evidence that the figurines are fake?]

Someone said: March 25, 2020 at 10:48 pm
Why do I get the feeling this is like a poker game? “ I bet you 5000 years” “ I will see you…. and you raise you 10000 years” ” well I’ll raise you 30,000 years”
” I think it’s closer to 1,000,000 years” What I wanna know is…. who’s the judge?

Someone said: March 25, 2020 at 11:18 pm
There is a sea bed impact crater near to Madagascar called Burkle Crater that has been estimated as being 5000 years old. This could have caused a tsunami type flood in the middle east…

[LK: Yes, but north of Madagascar is an even bigger crater, which apparently broke up the former supercontinent and caused rapid continental drift of the continents to their present locations toward the end of the Great Flood. See http://NewGeology.us ]

Someone said:
March 25, 2020 at 11:24 pm
I first discovered the great flood when i was researching climate change hoax… The huge temperature spikes 11/12k years ago led me to the geology problem….

The Major Cataclysms Occurred Less Than 5,000 Years Ago
That's the title of my post (Mon Sep 02, 2019 7:45 pm) at https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16025&start=885#p128539

Here's the first part of the post.

_An article by C. Ginenthal about Ancient Maps shows that Antarctica was apparently largely ice-free 6,000 years ago, based on drill cores at the Ross ice shelf and probably other measurements. If it's true that it was ice-free at that time, I think this means the Shock Dynamics impact and rapid continental drift occurred shortly before that, like within years, because the Arctic lands and Antarctica moved toward the frigid poles due to the impact, and the ice sheets built up soon after. An ancient map also shows Greenland without its ice sheet.

The article is at: http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/search.cgi?zoom_query=%22Common+Sense+About+Ancient+Maps+Charles+Ginenthal+In+1984&zoom_per_page=25&zoom_and=1&zoom_cat%5B%5D=-1

_Here's the quoted portion:
"Not only do these cartographers say the map is accurate, but they point out that, during the 1957 to 1958 Geophysical Year, other teams of seismic scientists, like that of Paul Emile Victor, went into Antarctica and made soundings of the topography under the ice, and that these soundings confirmed the accuracy of the Oronteus Fineus map. Therefore, we have the Piri Re'is map of Antarctica confirmed as accurate by the U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office and the Norwegian-British-Swedish Expedition of 1949, and the Oronteus Fineus map of Antarctica confirmed as accurate by Strategic Air Command's map office and the International Geophysical Year teams of 1957 to 1958.

_These findings are further corroborated by other evidence. According to Hapgood: During the Byrd Expedition of 1947-1948, Dr. Jack Hough, then of the University of Illinois, took three cores from the bottom of the ocean off the Ross Sea, and these were dated by the ionium method of radioactive dating, of the Carnegie Institution in Washington, by Dr. W. D. Urry, ... one of those to develop this method. The cores showed alternations of types of sediments.... There was a coarse glacial sediment, as was to be expected, and fine sediments of semiglacial type, but there were also layers of finer sediments typical of temperate climates. [These were the sort ...] carried down by rivers from ice-free continents. Here was the first surprise, then. Temperate conditions had evidently prevailed in Antarctica in the not distant past. The sediment[s indicated that, no fewer than three times during the Pleistocene Epoch, a temperate climate had prevailed in the Ross Sea. Then, when this material was dated by Urry, it was revealed that the most recent temperate period had been very recent indeed. In fact, it ended only about 6,000 years ago. Hough wrote: "The log of core N-5 shows glacial marine sediment from the present to 6,000 years ago. From 6,000 to 15,000 years ago, the sediment is fine-grained, with the exception of one granule at about 12,000 years ago. This suggests an absence of ice from the area during that period, except for a stray iceberg 12,000 years ago." (19) This evidence is further corroborated by Reginald Daly, who informs us that "[carbon-14] dating has shown that Antarctica's ice is less than 6,000 years old. (Emphasis added.) [Arthur Holmes writes: `Algal remains dated at 6,000 BP [Before Present] have been found on the latest terminal moraines.'" (20)

_Thus, in addition to the accuracy of the Piri Re'is map and the Oronteus Fineus map of Antarctica, we have measurements from cores in the Ross Sea and from the last glacial deposits containing a temperate species of algae that also show that Antarctica was not covered by ice 6,000 years ago. The evidence indicates that the Piri Re'is and Oronteus Fineus maps of Antarctica, published in the 16th century, are accurate and authentic representations of the continent as has been confirmed by scientists in the fields of seismic soundings and cartography. This shows that Antarctica was largely ice-free 6,000 years ago and is corroborated by evidence of cores from the Ross Sea and by the dating of algae in terminal moraines. The only way that such accurate maps could have been made prior to the 16th century is if Antarctica was not buried under thousands of feet of ice, when its climate had to be tremendously different."
_End of quote.
(Note: I assume that the object found at "12,000" years ago was not from an iceberg and the sediment dated older than 6,000BP was not older than that. See below.)

.

Lloyd wrote. If there is expansion of planets etc, it's a very slow process taking millions of years. But there's good evidence that sedimentary rock strata (and fossils etc) formed recently in a short period of time and that rapid continental drift and mountain building followed.

Airman. John Kierein’s site is worth a look, thanks. He appears to have his own possible mechanism for explaining why mass is being created where mass already exists. That idea seems perfectly consistent with the fact that according to the charge field, all matter constantly recycles charge. I can see how mass might grow or evaporate. From your comment I take it you don’t disagree with Earth Expansion Theory, but if it existed, would take a long time. That’s it? You call that an Earth Expansion Theory discussion?

As far as I’m concerned, the charge field is a given. That’s my main starting point. Any body of knowledge supposedly physics based that hasn’t taken some form of the charge field into account is incomplete or wrong. Apparently, you want to discuss Catastrophism in the five thousand years, or maybe Creationism? Global warming is a hoax? I don’t know, it’s not clear.

What’s your opinion? Do you see any way the charge field might account for or factor into your understanding of the last 5,000 years?
.

Here is where Miles said Venus didn't encounter the Earth recently, causing geologically recent global cataclysms. (Airman, I'll reply after this quote. Didn't see your reply till now.)

Beyond Velikovsky http://milesmathis.com/vel2.pdf

Anyway, this indicates to me that Venus has flipped recently, though I can't (yet) calculate whether that would be a few thousand years ago, or a few hundred thousand.   And why would she do that?  Well, it is very unlikely she was ejected from Jupiter as a comet, as everyone can see.  Comets don't have much in common with planets.  All of Velikovsky's arguments in that direction are a stretch, to put it nicely. As a first correction, we could push Velikovsky by offering that Venus was ejected from the vicinity of Jupiter, having been a moon until then.  But that is also unlikely, since neither Jupiter nor Saturn have any moons that large.  Also, there was no reason for Jupiter to be ejecting moons in Biblical times. Jupiter may have ejected moons in the past, but only for a very good reason (such as the Great Inequality).  That is to say, a close pass of Saturn or of an intruder might have caused such an ejection, but nothing like that was going on at the time.   If such a thing had happened just a few thousand years ago, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn would still be in turmoil.  

Which reminds us a better solution is suggested by the known dance of Jupiter and Saturn, that I pursued in my paper on Laplace. [ http://milesmathis.com/mars.html ]  Over long periods, it is known that Saturn tries to go below Jupiter, and I have also explained that. [ http://milesmathis.com/bode.html ] According to my correction to Bode's Law, smaller planets want to orbit below larger ones.  Once again, the charge field determines this.

Airman said: John Kierein’s site is worth a look, thanks. He appears to have his own possible mechanism for explaining why mass is being created where mass already exists. That idea seems perfectly consistent with the fact that according to the charge field, all matter constantly recycles charge. I can see how mass might grow or evaporate. From your comment I take it you don’t disagree with Earth Expansion Theory, but if it existed, would take a long time. That’s it? You call that an Earth Expansion Theory discussion?

LK: That was my starting point for discussion. John Kierein's site at http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html has a discussion of Earth Expansion over half way down the page. He explains gravity before that, I think. He says gravity is caused by long-wave radiation, which seems reasonable to me. Did you read that part? He says red shift of dstant light is due to the Compton Effect, not the Doppler Effect, in most cases. That also seems reasonable. He says photons have mass, but I don't think he has stated how much mass they have. So his ideas are pretty compatible with Miles'.

Airman said: As far as I’m concerned, the charge field is a given. That’s my main starting point. Any body of knowledge supposedly physics based that hasn’t taken some form of the charge field into account is incomplete or wrong. Apparently, you want to discuss Catastrophism in the five thousand years, or maybe Creationism? Global warming is a hoax? I don’t know, it’s not clear. What’s your opinion? Do you see any way the charge field might account for or factor into your understanding of the last 5,000 years?

LK: In the quote above, Miles said he didn't yet have the ability to calculate when Venus may have gone retrograde or when it may have encountered the Earth or some other body. The charge field isn't easy to understand for me. I can understand high pressure and low pressure areas and that fluids tend to move from high pressure areas to low pressure areas. Protons seem to have low pressure at their poles, so photons and electrons move toward those low pressure poles and from there the photons move to the equator or sometimes to the opposite poles and then outward in streams. Electrons are too big to go inside and get trapped at the poles, until something knocks them out. Maybe all spinning bodies have low pressure poles where photons and maybe some matter enters. Electrical forces are the same kind of high and low pressure dynamics, I suspect. Magnetism is said to be a result of photon spin, but that's not clear to me. Have you guys done any simulations of magnetism? I'd like to see that.
- Anyway, based on ancient myths, I regard cataclysms as mainly due to asteroid impacts and sometimes close encounters with large bodies. Miles says smaller planets tend to move closer to the Sun, so those movements can cause cataclysms. I'll have to review his paper on Bode's Law to see if he has good calculations on that. Sedimentary rock strata of the geologic column consist of about 6 megasequences, each megasequence having likely been deposited over a few days time by tidal waves caused by a large body that orbited the Earth elliptically and came near the Earth about once a month laying down each megasequence in turn for about 6 months at some time a few thousand years ago. The lack of signs of erosion between strata is one of the clues that the strata were deposited in very short time periods.

.
I looked at John Kierein’s site, if only enough to convince myself he wasn’t taking credit for any of Miles’ work.

Ever wonder what causes gravity? See the book: PUSHING GRAVITY. I have a chapter in the book.

Here’s the link to a separate html page. Gravity as the Effect of the Long Wavelength Background Radiation in a Static Universe with a Compton Effect Cosmological Red Shift. http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/GRAVI3_6.1_5-30-2005.htm
. As far as I recall, we've always been partial to Push Gravity.

There’s a section on the original page where Kierein is describing the work of JEAN-PIERRE VIGIER (Update 2017) who believes that photons had a tiny mass - like the neutrino is now thought to have.

Nothing about spin. I’ll go back and give Kierein's site a closer look sometime in the future.

With respect to relatively recent cataclysms.

Repeating the top of Miles’ quote.

Anyway, this indicates to me that Venus has flipped recently, though I can't (yet) calculate whether that would be a few thousand years ago, or a few hundred thousand. And why would she do that?

Everyone nowadays accepts the notions of asteroid impacts or close encounters with large bodies. Miles says he wasn’t yet able to calculate when Venus’ spin flip occurred. That begs the question; how exactly does he think the spin flip occurred? I have no idea how such a calculation could begin. First a right around Jupiter and a left around Saturn?

Along with the Expanding Earth theory above, I mentioned a second topic of interest, a ‘simple’ mechanism that can flip a planet’s spin. The Bizarre Behavior of Rotating Bodies, Explained
https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t563-the-bizarre-behavior-of-rotating-bodies-explained.

Jared disagreed with me, but I see no reason why the mass flows of charge and anticharge recycling through a very large charged particles cannot cause abrupt shifts in the 'particles' spin.
.

VENUS AS COMET
Now I'll comment on the above Miles quote from Beyond Velikovsky http://milesmathis.com/vel2.pdf
_MM: Anyway, this indicates to me that Venus has flipped recently, though I can't (yet) calculate whether that would be a few thousand years ago, or a few hundred thousand. And why would she do that?  Well, it is very unlikely she was ejected from Jupiter as a comet, as everyone can see.  Comets don't have much in common with planets.  All of Velikovsky's arguments in that direction are a stretch, to put it nicely.
_LK: Ancient myths definitely seem to indicate that the ancients considered Venus to be a comet for a period of time about 5,000 years ago. Since myths from around the world say the same thing, it's reasonable that it probably did look much like what later comets have looked like, i.e. having a bright tail of dust and gases behind it.

_MM: As a first correction, we could push Velikovsky by offering that Venus was ejected from the vicinity of Jupiter, having been a moon until then.  But that is also unlikely, since neither Jupiter nor Saturn have any moons that large.
_LK: Saturn seems to have been a brown dwarf star that flared up as a nova, with Venus, Mars and Earth having been satellites of Saturn, which were lost to the Sun when Venus acted like a comet.

BEFORE BIBLICAL TIMES
_MM: Also, there was no reason for Jupiter to be ejecting moons in Biblical times.
_LK: Comparative mythologists concluded that the events were pre-biblical, much earlier than Velikovsky proposed.

RAPID CIRCULARIZATION OF ORBITS
_MM: Jupiter may have ejected moons in the past, but only for a very good reason (such as the Great Inequality).  That is to say, a close pass of Saturn or of an intruder might have caused such an ejection, but nothing like that was going on at the time. If such a thing had happened just a few thousand years ago, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn would still be in turmoil.
_LK: The ancient myths say such things did happen and if there was a lot of gas and dust in the solar system at that time, it could have circularized orbits in a few decades.

CHARGE FIELD PRESSURE & TITIUS BODE LAW VS ROGUE PLANETS
_MM: Which reminds us a better solution is suggested by the known dance of Jupiter and Saturn, that I pursued in my paper on Laplace. [ http://milesmathis.com/mars.html ]  Over long periods, it is known that Saturn tries to go below Jupiter, and I have also explained that. [ http://milesmathis.com/bode.html ] According to my correction to Bode's Law, smaller planets want to orbit below larger ones.  Once again, the charge field determines this.
_LK: This is kind of a tangent. I don't think Miles has yet calculated how much pressure the charge fields from the Sun and the planets put on each other. Has he? If not, does anyone know why not? Or if he has, where are those pressures stated?
_Since there seemingly are known to be rogue stars and planets, it's plausible to me that the Saturn Theory could be right that the Saturn system came from outside the solar system. If we don't know how much pressure the charge field puts on planets and other bodies, it's hard to estimate how much more likely it is that the charge field has produced past planetary cataclysms or if rogue systems have caused them. We also don't know if the charge field pressures are enough to prevent large bodies on certain trajectories and high velocities from impacting the Sun or other planets etc.
_Charles Chandler discovered that the same relationship applies between the spacing of planets, the spacing of atoms, the spacing of stars in globular clusters and so on. He found that the electrical replusion between like charged Debye cells in plasma, combined with the Sun's gravity, accounts for the spacing of solar system planets. Electrical repulsion is the charge field, though he hasn't accepted Miles' ideas yet, that I know of. His paper is at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15369
_Miles hasn't provided details yet of how the planets would have gotten into their present positions. Charles has some details at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031 . But Mike Fischer's site http://NewGeology.us explains a lot of Earth cataclysms.

VENUS SPIN FLIPPED

Airman said: Everyone nowadays accepts the notions of asteroid impacts or close encounters with large bodies. Miles says he wasn’t yet able to calculate when Venus’ spin flip occurred. That begs the question; how exactly does he think the spin flip occurred? I have no idea how such a calculation could begin. First a right around Jupiter and a left around Saturn?

Along with the Expanding Earth theory above, I mentioned a second topic of interest, a ‘simple’ mechanism that can flip a planet’s spin. The Bizarre Behavior of Rotating Bodies, Explained
https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t563-the-bizarre-behavior-of-rotating-bodies-explained.

This must be the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPfZ_XzisU
I see he concluded that the Earth can't flip over, because it's rotating about its maximum moment of inertia. Charles and/or Mike think the supercontinent formed from a body that also formed the Moon. I think Charles says it must have had a soft-landing on the Earth, since it didn't completely melt and form a smooth shell all around the Earth. So if that occurred, it may have caused a flip of the Earth. The asteroid that broke up the supercontinent and caused rapid continental drift of the continents to their present locations, might also have caused a flip, but I haven't read anything about that possibility yet.

.

VENUS AS COMET
Now I'll comment on the above Miles quote from Beyond Velikovsky http://milesmathis.com/vel2.pdf
_MM: Anyway, this indicates to me that Venus has flipped recently, though I can't (yet) calculate whether that would be a few thousand years ago, or a few hundred thousand. And why would she do that?  Well, it is very unlikely she was ejected from Jupiter as a comet, as everyone can see.  Comets don't have much in common with planets.  All of Velikovsky's arguments in that direction are a stretch, to put it nicely.
_LK: Ancient myths definitely seem to indicate that the ancients considered Venus to be a comet for a period of time about 5,000 years ago. Since myths from around the world say the same thing, it's reasonable that it probably did look much like what later comets have looked like, i.e. having a bright tail of dust and gases behind it.

_Airman: Venus is hardly comparable to comets but there’s an easy explanation. When comets, in their long range elliptical orbits swing back toward the sun, they receive an ever increasing charge current from the sun. There’s no generally understood mechanism to ‘dissipate’ the increased charge, the illuminated mass must recycle it. Like a Van der Graf static charge generator, or Tesla’s workshop, ten’s, hundreds of thousands of volts or more, all hair standing on end, the increased energy is more than sufficient to break the atoms bonds on the comet’s surface. Once free, those atoms are charge repelled by the comet’s emission field to extend far out into space, in what we recognize as the comets corona. If the comet survives the swing around the sun, they head back to deep space having lost a good deal of their surface matter.

If Venus were approaching the sun from a high orbit, Jupiter, Saturn, or the Ort cloud, it too would need to recycle ever an increasing energy that would form cometary like corona.  

_MM: As a first correction, we could push Velikovsky by offering that Venus was ejected from the vicinity of Jupiter, having been a moon until then.  But that is also unlikely, since neither Jupiter nor Saturn have any moons that large.
_LK: Saturn seems to have been a brown dwarf star that flared up as a nova, with Venus, Mars and Earth having been satellites of Saturn, which were lost to the Sun when Venus acted like a comet.

_ Airman: If the Earth was also a lost moon of Jupiter or Saturn, it too would have dropped from the same high orbit. Earth would have generated corona. I don’t believed our atmosphere would have survived intact or that we would have survived the trip or energy differential.

BEFORE BIBLICAL TIMES
_MM: Also, there was no reason for Jupiter to be ejecting moons in Biblical times.
_LK: Comparative mythologists concluded that the events were pre-biblical, much earlier than Velikovsky proposed.

_Airman: There are many possibilities that would require planetary forensics. The Ort cloud is a fine source for very small planetary bodies.

RAPID CIRCULARIZATION OF ORBITS
_MM: Jupiter may have ejected moons in the past, but only for a very good reason (such as the Great Inequality).  That is to say, a close pass of Saturn or of an intruder might have caused such an ejection, but nothing like that was going on at the time. If such a thing had happened just a few thousand years ago, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn would still be in turmoil.
_LK: The ancient myths say such things did happen and if there was a lot of gas and dust in the solar system at that time, it could have circularized orbits in a few decades.

_Airman: Generally, the further you go from the sun, the more eccentric the orbit. Lower orbits, such as Mercury, Venus, and Earth receive higher overall charge emissions from the sun. Those higher emissions at the lower stable orbit balance between gravity and charge are what causes the circular orbits to form.

CHARGE FIELD PRESSURE & TITIUS BODE LAW VS ROGUE PLANETS
_MM: Which reminds us a better solution is suggested by the known dance of Jupiter and Saturn, that I pursued in my paper on Laplace. [ http://milesmathis.com/mars.html ]  Over long periods, it is known that Saturn tries to go below Jupiter, and I have also explained that. [ http://milesmathis.com/bode.html ] According to my correction to Bode's Law, smaller planets want to orbit below larger ones.  Once again, the charge field determines this.
_LK: This is kind of a tangent. I don't think Miles has yet calculated how much pressure the charge fields from the Sun and the planets put on each other. Has he? If not, does anyone know why not? Or if he has, where are those pressures stated?

_Airman: I don’t think he’s calculated pressures per se. What he has calculated is the relationship balance between charge and gravity. That should satisfy your ‘pressure’ requirement.

__LK: Since there seemingly are known to be rogue stars and planets, it's plausible to me that the Saturn Theory could be right that the Saturn system came from outside the solar system. If we don't know how much pressure the charge field puts on planets and other bodies, it's hard to estimate how much more likely it is that the charge field has produced past planetary cataclysms or if rogue systems have caused them. We also don't know if the charge field pressures are enough to prevent large bodies on certain trajectories and high velocities from impacting the Sun or other planets etc.

_Airman: Saturn is special in that it is not in a stable orbit. It should be below Jupiter, not above it. Jupiter has prevented it from orbiting Sol any closer. It’s certainly possible that Saturn had it’s own system before losing it to Sol, and or Jupiter. If so, I think that would have involved a lot more turmoil than we see evidence of today.

__LK: Charles Chandler discovered that the same relationship applies between the spacing of planets, the spacing of atoms, the spacing of stars in globular clusters and so on. He found that the electrical replusion between like charged Debye cells in plasma, combined with the Sun's gravity, accounts for the spacing of solar system planets. Electrical repulsion is the charge field, though he hasn't accepted Miles' ideas yet, that I know of. His paper is at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15369
__LK: Miles hasn't provided details yet of how the planets would have gotten into their present positions. Charles has some details at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031 . But Mike Fischer's site http://NewGeology.us explains a lot of Earth cataclysms.

_Airman: While Miles hasn’t explained why Saturn is above Jupiter and other anomalies, we may never know; he has identified their proper orbital spacing, the balance between gravity and charge.
http://milesmathis.com/index.html
A Complete Correction to and Explanation of BODE'S LAW
157. Bode's Law. A complete explanation of and correction to Bode's Law. 19pp.

I just now noticed the VENUS SPIN FLIP comment.
.

.

Lloyd wrote. This must be the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPfZ_XzisU
I see he concluded that the Earth can't flip over, because it's rotating about its maximum moment of inertia. Charles and/or Mike think the supercontinent formed from a body that also formed the Moon. I think Charles says it must have had a soft-landing on the Earth, since it didn't completely melt and form a smooth shell all around the Earth. So if that occurred, it may have caused a flip of the Earth. The asteroid that broke up the supercontinent and caused rapid continental drift of the continents to their present locations, might also have caused a flip, but I haven't read anything about that possibility yet.

Airman. Yes. Thanks for the comment. I especially like the idea of soft-landings, except I’d say such collisions are soft-bounces. After the brief contact with no significant surface ruptures, the two bodies would not tend to coalesce, their mutual repulsion would try to accelerate them apart in their separate directions. If they were smashed together with sufficient force, gravity does not dominate charge, the two bodies in however many pieces wouldn’t stay together because of their mutual repulsion, such might explain how the asteroid belt formed. Now, it makes sense that the moon busted Earth's supercontinent surface when they first met.

When I talk about flip, I’m trying to understand turning forces. The earth is not a “solid”; it is a spin-stabilized high-order charged particle. Soft-bounces occurring equator to equator should cause some spin cancellation or not, spin flips are unlikely. I believe Soft bounces between equator and pole have the best chance of causing spin flips. Collisions between poles may result in slow, soft bounces. All the while we must consider the imbalances between charge and anticharge. If there’s a big difference in size, such as Venus and Sol, the energy Venus receives from the Sol is sufficient to flip the planet. I'm not sure how, something I keep wondering about.
.

ANCIENT GLOBAL CATACLYSM
[copied from CuttingThroughTheFog.com]
For anyone interested, here’s my latest post:
https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t584-butting-in-science-catastrophism-discussions#6021
Just before that I copied some of the discussion from here above.

BIBLE EVIDENCE
Someone said: March 27, 2020 at 5:06 pm
I’m not a fool…. I’ve been around the block once or twice in my day. The only reason why someone would try to keep everything within 5000 years is because that is when the supposed noah’s ark story in the Bible would have occured. Is that why you want to keep everything within 5000 years? To prove the Bible fable correct? If not….. then what’s so important about the 5000 years?

_LK: I'm Christian in the sense that I believe in following the example of love for all, and it appears that the shroud of Turin is a genuine relic from the crucifixion of Jesus, but I don't pretend to be certain that it is or that Jesus even existed, though it seems likely. I don't believe the Bible is the word of God any more than any other writing is. The description of the Great Flood is only one of probably hundreds of such stories from ancient times. But the only reason I think the Flood occurred less than 5,000 years ago is because of the ancient maps that show Greenland and/or Antarctica free of ice etc and the dating of the sediments off Antarctica to within 6,000 years ago and a bunch of evidence from Jonathan Gray that I posted at https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16025#p108920 . There's a lot of good info in that thread at https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16025 , but it doesn't largely deal with the timing of the major cataclysms.

OTHER EVIDENCE
Someone said: March 27, 2020 at 5:28 pm
... There may be many well justified reasons to question chronology. Thera (Santorini) for instance is thought to have erupted with vast destruction in around 1600 BC. The Oera Linda book dates the sinking of Atlan to precisely 2193 BC, due, presumably to an asteroid impact. This topic is not all about justifying Bible text. It is about discovery and hopefully correct dating and correcting corrupted history.

Someone said: March 27, 2020 at 6:12 pm
I would consider that Thailand tsunami documented with pretty unfake-able video footage and pretty “cataclysmic” as well. Key is — how do YOU define a “cataclysm”?

_LK: I define a global cataclysm as any event that does great harm to the global biosphere.

YOUNGER DRYAS EVENT
Someone said: March 27, 2020 at 6:24 pm
_Those are all smaller catastrophes that could very well have happen less than 5000 years ago. We[']re talking about major catastrophes that formed mountains and valleys and such. Those had to be way more than 5000 years. It probably occurred during the last Ice Age 15,000 to 13,000 years ago. A great blanket of ice called the Cordilleran Ice Sheet covered most of Canadian North America, dipping down into parts of the U.S. As the ice melted, it formed lakes like Lake Missoula where the water was held in by a 2,000-foot wall of ice. The area where the city of Missoula now stands was then under 950 feet of water.
_About 12[,]000 years ago, the earth moved out of its last glacial maximum. It was a period where 6 billion cubic meters of ice needed to be distributed across the planet. The timeframe is now known as the Younger Dryas, when the earth was thrown back into a mini ice age for 1200 years. Once the cold-snap ended, there was rapid global warming and rising sea levels.
_One point that has baffled scientists is how quickly the ice disappeared. To melt such a vast volume of glacial ice, it would take tens of thousands of years.
Geologists have discovered that it vanished 4000 years. That is a blink of an eye-lid in early earth history.
_While disappearing quickly, the volumes of water to be moved are mind-boggling. Estimates across North America show geological scars require flows at 752,000,000 cubic feet per second. This number is huge. Beyond huge. Almost unthinkable. It is ten times greater than all the combined rivers flowing on earth today.
_The most widely held hypothesis to explain where the water went is the ice-dam burst model. It describes a gradual bursting process of ice dams on top of the ice sheets. For this to happen, the water held by the hypothetical ice dam would have been 2100 feet deep and spanning hundreds of miles on top of the ice. It would have held over 500 cubic miles of water a thousand times larger than any modern ice dam burst ever seen. The highest modern dam in North America is around 700 feet deep. The proposed ice dam would have needed to span 7 miles wide at its highest point, and 2 miles wide at its base.

_LK: Randall Carlson said in a recent video that the flood that formed the Washington state scablands came from Canada, moreso than from Montana. He said previously that an ice dam would not be able to hold back water more than about 200 feet deep, so that hypothesis would be wrong.

Someone said: March 27, 2020 at 7:49 pm
The comet hypothesis fits better than the ice dam one. It explains the lack of big mammals in the americas, it explains the carolina bays, it explains platos account of antlantis.

_LK: Yes, it also explains how so much ice melted so quickly and flooded large areas of North America, not just Washington state. Much of the features considered as evidence of glaciation have been shown by Charles Ginenthal to be better explained by flooding on and under the ice sheet, which removed much of the sheet into the oceans, mainly the Atlantic. He said eskers and drumlins for example are better explained this way.

Someone said: March 27, 2020 at 8:20 pm
All I know is something happened and it wasn’t 5000 years ago. What if it was both at the same time?

_LK: I guess you mean what if it was an ice dam and a comet at the same time that caused the Missoula flood. The ice dam theory isn't needed if a comet or similar impact caused the North American floods.

Someone said: March 27, 2020 at 8:53 pm
If the 5000 year thing is trying to make the bible story fit, then that is just daft… The thing to remember about the bible is that it is a bad translation of a bad translation from an unknown source… Unless you are translating from the original text, you are wasting everyones time… Otherwise, what is the significance of 3000BC[?]

_LK: Yes, but other evidence suggests that the Great Flood occurred less than 5,000 years ago and the Younger Dryas event occurred after that. Some good videos on the YD event are at Antonio Zamora's Younger Dryas Impact etc Channel at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM8bvhhFAB-Wmr-PeEVkGTA/videos - He accepts the conventional dating, but I just think he's wrong about that, but not most of the rest.

BIBLE EVIDENCE AGAIN
Someone said: March 27, 2020 at 9:06 pm
Remember that Miles has brought out how much they’ve tried to blackwash Christianity? And you don’t think that it would include downplaying the validity of the first and second Testaments of the Bible? Remember that practically all aboriginal histories have a flood story so it can’t be that the account in the Bible of Noah’s flood was a plagiarism from some Babylonian account, as they try to make it out to be. Maybe we’re getting the most accurate account, though {?} I can think of other instances where Biblical discoveries didn’t make the five o’clock news.

MY SUMMARY
Someone said: March 28, 2020 at 2:07 pm
@ someone — the system won’t let me specifically reply to that summary of relatively recent desert mountain history and photograph but it is awesome and I thank you. The terrain of high desert Arizona has often baffled and intrigued me. Thanks for helping me try to understand it better.

_LK: IMO, the Great Flood, caused by a temporarily elliptically orbiting body's tidal effects, deposited almost all of the sedimentary rock strata on the former supercontinent (including Arizona's high desert terrain), which had no mountains, while numerous meteors/asteroids impacted the Earth. Toward the end of the Flood, the largest asteroid impacted north of present-day Madagascar, splitting up the continents and causing rapid continental drift and mountain building in the process. The YD event occurred not too long after the Flood.

ADVANCED ANCIENT CIVILIZATION
Someone said: March 28, 2020 at 6:28 pm
I just wrote a longer bit with some quotes from the introduction of the Robert Scrutton book “The Other Atlantis” about the implications of the Oera Linda Book, and posted this in the other thread on this same blog: “A Brief History of Spookery”. This book relates directly to the history of the Phoenicians, and their network of colonies around the world.

_LK: Maybe I'll get time to look at that soon (I'm off work today kuz of the coronavirus scare). There appears to have been advanced civilization at the time of the Great Flood, and I think the Phoenicians were probably the remnants of it.

REPULSION BETWEEN SOLAR SYSTEM BODIES
_LK: … I don't think Miles has yet calculated how much pressure the charge fields from the Sun and the planets put on each other. Has he? If not, does anyone know why not? Or if he has, where are those pressures stated?

_Airman: I don’t think he’s calculated pressures per se. What he has calculated is the relationship balance between charge and gravity. That should satisfy your ‘pressure’ requirement.

_LK: So can you or anyone calculate how much pressure the Sun and the planets put on the Earth? Besides Miles' version of Newton's gravity equation, we should be able to determine how much pressure they put on the Earth by knowing how much photon density there is in each direction, since we already know what Miles has calculated as the mass of a photon. Right?

_LK: So can you or anyone calculate how much pressure the Sun and the planets put on the Earth? Besides Miles' version of Newton's gravity equation, we should be able to determine how much pressure they put on the Earth by knowing how much photon density there is in each direction, since we already know what Miles has calculated as the mass of a photon. Right?

Airman. Sure, we should be able to calculate the basic emission pressure between the Sun and any planet. We need only know the two masses, sizes, directions and distances between them. I believe that gives a rough order of magnitude value that may be too high.

The Earth is inside a large charge pressure system. As the Bode and Solar Cycle papers show, all the major planets are contributing their own charge emissions, forcing the Earth to orbit closer to the sun than it would without that additional ‘downward’ charge pressure. Miles mentions the need for solving five body problems (Sol, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) to adequately model the system and solar cycles.

By including "how much pressure the Sun and the planets put on the Earth" you acknowledge the additional complexity involved. Beyond my ability to calculate, I'm hoping Miles might provide the additional mechanics he's developed solving the Solar Cycles.
.